Things that are unintentional status symbols.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. They've alienated their base. It's Mountain Hardware, Marmot or Patagonia now. North Face is for teens.

I just bought a Marmot jacket! Tired of the North Face ubiquitousness.

Me too. I remember a couple years ago at a Potbelly's near Chicago in a sort of Upper-upper-middle area - practically every single adult was wearing this UNIFORM. Jeans, New Balance, and identical NF fleece. I've never owned it, and it turned DH off - he doesn't want to look like everyone else, so he's actually self conscious about wearing a NF jacket he bought like nine years ago because he doesn't want people to think he's just blending in. He'll only wear Arcteryx of Canada Goose now...

That's way more obsessive than just wearing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1. Yup. This is a New England thing, though, I think. I'm from CT so I get this (though, sadly, I'm not one of the lucky ones). But yeah, we have friends with old family homes on the Vineyard and random little islands in Maine. They wear LL Bean fleeces all summer at said cottages (which are always extremely low-key, weathered, and rustic but at the same time perfectly tasteful and of obvious quality that has aged well). Old Volvos and Saabs and, back in the day, Jeep Wagoneers (remember those? LOVE). Very little jewelry or makeup, but they're always in shape so they can pull of the sporty look well. They ski, they sail, they know art, and they have interesting names for their grandparents. Point being, they don't have to broadcast their money with more high-end fleeces or white elephant summer homes. The low-key approach broadcasts their privilege and family background much more effectively to those who understand the code. I actually find it more refreshing than the flashiness around DC.

YES!!!!!!! Nailed it.

+1 (pp here who was the cape cod vacationer). Totally agree.

I see this too, quite a bit in my job, but I find it relatively common and can spot it a mild away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. They've alienated their base. It's Mountain Hardware, Marmot or Patagonia now. North Face is for teens.

I just bought a Marmot jacket! Tired of the North Face ubiquitousness.

Well there goes the "unintentional status symbol" status.

$100 for a fleece hoody? That's insane.

it's expensive but not for a reason. That is why it is not "unintentional" where HH was something only people who sail wore (until Macy's picked up the line) and MH is something you only would buy if you are a mountain climber (until Dick's picked up the line), it was only sold in mountain climbing stores.

In a year it will no longer be "unintentional" because everybody can get it. Just like Marmot.

Marmot is just a knock off of North Face. It has no unintentionalness about it. It's just moderately good expensive clothes.

UnderArmour use to have that ... if you did not live in MD, you could not get UA. If you went to California with UnderArmour people knew you were from the East Coast or they knew you travelled there.

We would send UA to our aupair in Europe becuase you could only get Nike and Addidas in Europe. So, UA was an unintentional staus symbol ("oh my host family sent it to me")

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has had the same family housekeeper for several decades-overpays her to not clean very well.

Ha! So true!

Perhaps it is because they take seriously their responsibility as an employer to her -- all too rare today, in our hire-and-fire, even-my-nanny-is-an-independent-contractor cutlure.

[Anonymous]

Back to the no-makeup thing. I think that the more wealthy you are, the more money you have to spend on chemical peels and facials. Therefore, your skin will be more even and will not require much makeup. I only wear makeup because my skin tone is uneven. If I had money and could afford regular treatments, I would definitely go without makeup.

[Anonymous]

The word unintentional brings to mind old money. The nouveau riche unless very classy push their wealth in your face - new expensive cars every year or two, rudeness and stinginess with waiters and other employees, huge engagement rings, push presents.

It is not having antique silver or jewelry that makes it unintentional. Of course, it was originally bought to show off and the current generation knows it is valuable, but they use the ugly antique solid silver stuff to make a peanut butter sandwich (maybe if they are WASPY enough the peanut butter is the store brand). The antique silver is what is there and they use it because it works - quality lasts a long time.

Unintentional might be the mom who donates a "pie a month" to the auction. She makes them herself with her own hands (wearing a thin gold wedding ring and an antique Native American piece bought by a great great Aunt in the 1920s), BUT the pies are not available June through August. No explanation given but it is because mom and the kids are at the beach for the summer in an ancestral cottage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to the no-makeup thing. I think that the more wealthy you are, the more money you have to spend on chemical peels and facials. Therefore, your skin will be more even and will not require much makeup. I only wear makeup because my skin tone is uneven. If I had money and could afford regular treatments, I would definitely go without makeup.

I think it's also a regional thing. I grew up in the south and most women, regardless of social status or wealth, would not be caught dead outside the house without tasteful makeup. I attended an Ivy and my first roommate, from New England, was shocked that I put on (minimal) makeup to go to class. I was shocked that she didn't do anything for her appearance!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thin gold wedding band. Eschewing other jewelry as gauche or exploitative of the workers who mined it.

Interesting, I love looking at peoples wedding jewlery and I've found in some circle I run in the older rich women only wear thin bands really. I wonder if this is a thing at all. I have indeed noticed it.

This is because their fancier engagement rings, etc., no longer fit over their knuckles and they would rather just save those family pieces to pass down rather than have them resized. BTDT.

[Anonymous]

professionally trained guard dogs that obey attack commands spoken in a different language

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1. Yup. This is a New England thing, though, I think. I'm from CT so I get this (though, sadly, I'm not one of the lucky ones). But yeah, we have friends with old family homes on the Vineyard and random little islands in Maine. They wear LL Bean fleeces all summer at said cottages (which are always extremely low-key, weathered, and rustic but at the same time perfectly tasteful and of obvious quality that has aged well). Old Volvos and Saabs and, back in the day, Jeep Wagoneers (remember those? LOVE). Very little jewelry or makeup, but they're always in shape so they can pull of the sporty look well. They ski, they sail, they know art, and they have interesting names for their grandparents. Point being, they don't have to broadcast their money with more high-end fleeces or white elephant summer homes. The low-key approach broadcasts their privilege and family background much more effectively to those who understand the code. I actually find it more refreshing than the flashiness around DC.

YES!!!!!!! Nailed it.

+1. I am from CT and this isn't my family but describes it to a tee. No flashy brands, cars, whatever. That would be considered totally gauche. Old LL bean anything, beat up Volvo or Saab. Weathered polos, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1. Yup. This is a New England thing, though, I think. I'm from CT so I get this (though, sadly, I'm not one of the lucky ones). But yeah, we have friends with old family homes on the Vineyard and random little islands in Maine. They wear LL Bean fleeces all summer at said cottages (which are always extremely low-key, weathered, and rustic but at the same time perfectly tasteful and of obvious quality that has aged well). Old Volvos and Saabs and, back in the day, Jeep Wagoneers (remember those? LOVE). Very little jewelry or makeup, but they're always in shape so they can pull of the sporty look well. They ski, they sail, they know art, and they have interesting names for their grandparents. Point being, they don't have to broadcast their money with more high-end fleeces or white elephant summer homes. The low-key approach broadcasts their privilege and family background much more effectively to those who understand the code. I actually find it more refreshing than the flashiness around DC.

YES!!!!!!! Nailed it.

+1. I am from CT and this isn't my family but describes it to a tee. No flashy brands, cars, whatever. That would be considered totally gauche. Old LL bean anything, beat up Volvo or Saab. Weathered polos, etc.

+2 From New Hampshire and totally get this. I even drive a Saab (it's my 3rd and last since they no longer make them!). I used to go to the Vineyard in the summer, but we did not have a house there. Used to stay with family friends.

[Anonymous]

It's weird to me how New Englanders think looking plain is virtuous or indicative of status. What's wrong with looking nice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. They've alienated their base. It's Mountain Hardware, Marmot or Patagonia now. North Face is for teens.

I just bought a Marmot jacket! Tired of the North Face ubiquitousness.

Me too. I remember a couple years ago at a Potbelly's near Chicago in a sort of Upper-upper-middle area - practically every single adult was wearing this UNIFORM. Jeans, New Balance, and identical NF fleece. I've never owned it, and it turned DH off - he doesn't want to look like everyone else, so he's actually self conscious about wearing a NF jacket he bought like nine years ago because he doesn't want people to think he's just blending in. He'll only wear Arcteryx of Canada Goose now...

That's way more obsessive than just wearing it.

I agree, hence the eyeroll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1. Yup. This is a New England thing, though, I think. I'm from CT so I get this (though, sadly, I'm not one of the lucky ones). But yeah, we have friends with old family homes on the Vineyard and random little islands in Maine. They wear LL Bean fleeces all summer at said cottages (which are always extremely low-key, weathered, and rustic but at the same time perfectly tasteful and of obvious quality that has aged well). Old Volvos and Saabs and, back in the day, Jeep Wagoneers (remember those? LOVE). Very little jewelry or makeup, but they're always in shape so they can pull of the sporty look well. They ski, they sail, they know art, and they have interesting names for their grandparents. Point being, they don't have to broadcast their money with more high-end fleeces or white elephant summer homes. The low-key approach broadcasts their privilege and family background much more effectively to those who understand the code. I actually find it more refreshing than the flashiness around DC.

YES!!!!!!! Nailed it.

+1. I am from CT and this isn't my family but describes it to a tee. No flashy brands, cars, whatever. That would be considered totally gauche. Old LL bean anything, beat up Volvo or Saab. Weathered polos, etc.

+2 From New Hampshire and totally get this. I even drive a Saab (it's my 3rd and last since they no longer make them!). I used to go to the Vineyard in the summer, but we did not have a house there. Used to stay with family friends.

Nah. This is just New England plainness. The middle class act like that, too.

[Anonymous]

They wear sandals year round unless it is snowing and sometimes even then